Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.tcl,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.duke.edu!convex!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!news.uh.edu!uuneo.neosoft.com!nmtigw!peter
From: peter@nmti.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: GNU Extension Language Plans
Message-ID: <id.BD8E1.D7L@nmti.com>
Sender: peter@nmti.com (peter da silva)
Organization: Network/development platform support, NMTI
References: <38opfa$3m2@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu> <yBDVuc1w165w@sytex.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 15:20:48 GMT
Lines: 15
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.misc:18502 comp.lang.scheme:10749 comp.lang.tcl:21024 comp.os.linux.misc:31219

In article <yBDVuc1w165w@sytex.com>, Scott McLoughlin <smcl@sytex.com> wrote:
>         I do not see a big problem compiling/running top level
> definitions and bits of code. One can easily compile to bytecode
> so fast that the user will have _no idea_  with regard to
> eval VS. compile/run. Many "existence proofs" abound.

I don't think anyone is worried about such bytecode interpreters. They're
really just an implementation detail... it's way too soon to start worrying
about whether gescheme is bytecompiled, threaded, or interpreted by a
listwalker.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                            `-_-'
Network Management Technology Incorporated                 'U`
1601 Industrial Blvd.     Sugar Land, TX  77478  USA
+1 713 274 5180                       "Hast Du heute schon Deinen Wolf umarmt?"
